Meral: thank you for your detailed review. You have done many reviews on this document set. Very much appreciated!
I have a couple of comments below on the discussion, not commenting on this already agreed:
> Actually going back to my comment :
> " -Perhaps in part 1 give a suggestion on how to use/read these documents (RFCs). Could any of them be skipped at first for a simple implementation?
> I think it is worthwhile spending minimum 2-3 pages to summarize the various documents (Parts) and suggest how to use them best.
> "
I agree that we should not change the structure of the documents at this stage. As I said in the other mail, I think a list of other documents and their primary use might have been a useful thing to do.
>>> Not sure if "occasionally other common port traffic" means port 443?
>>> ...
>>
>> Nope (at least that's my understanding).
>
> So it is other ports than 80/443? In this case, you may want to add 443 to the text.
I think the situation is that we have multiple such ports… not sure mentioning the specific ones is necessary.
>>
>>> -[Page 16], would it be ok to use MAY? If so it would be clearer to use
>>> MAY. : "A recipient MAY..."
>>>
>>> "
>>> A recipient can assume that a
>>> message with a higher minor version, when sent to a recipient that
>>> has not yet indicated support for that higher version, is
>>> sufficiently backwards-compatible to be safely processed by any
>>> implementation of the same major version.
>>> "
>>
>> Exactly how is that clearer?
>
> Please refer to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119 for extra significance.
I think "MAY" would be my choice, but I understand the authors if they have a reason to try to stay with language and requirements that existing documents and implementations have used.
>>
>>> -[Page 17], Section 2.7.1 first line: "...for the purpose of minting
>>> identifiers".
>>>
>>> suggestion: if another word than "minting" (e.g. generating, creating),
>>> could be used it would be easier to read that section.
>>>
>>> (also used in section 2.7.2)
>>
>> I believe the term "minting" is very commonly used.
>
> I am not the best judge either (but I had to google it).
I think this term is occasionally used, probably ok.
>>>
>>> Also the term "authoritative" is introduced and should be defined in this
>>> context.
>>>
>>> "
>>> If the server responds to that request with a non-interim
>>> HTTP response message, as described in Section 6 of [Part2], then
>>> that response is considered an authoritative answer to the client's
>>> request.
>>> "
>>
>> As defined in Part2, Section 6; that is, a status code other that 1xx.
>
> "authoritative" means coming from origin server?
Was there a response, Julian?
Jari